Final week, question 3

Overall, this class is one of the most enjoyable classes that I've been "in." What I really liked most was that I could be myself, and for the most part, had free reign in my discussions. Oh sure, there were guidelines, but they were fairly loose, and I did not feel that there was someone constantly watching over my shoulder to make sure that I was doing right; I felt that I was trusted to make decisions that I thought would be beneficial to the class, and if I needed help, it would be there. I didn't really have any complaints about the class. It was relaxed, and I felt I could post what I thought/felt without someone taking major offense to what I had to say. Overall I thought it was very interesting, and the concepts that I learned helped to put all kinds of communication into perspective for me, and taught me that there is a theory behind almost everything.

Final Week, question 2

While we spent a lot of time talking about concepts this semester, there was one that I felt we could have covered more. Rather, it's not a concept, but a chapter. I know that I talked in my earlier post that I enjoyed talking about the cultural communication chapter, but I think we should have spent more time on it.

Cultural indifference is such a problem in this society. I feel that while we live in a country that accepts people of all different backgrounds, we are still so culturally ignorant. We can sit here and say that we accept them and they should have the freedom to express themselves, but we still look down on those who are so very different than ourselves. The idea that we could truly accept someone for being different, and not look at it as a threat to our own selves would be a wonderful change that I think we should try and embrace more, and we can do that by educating people about other cultures, and spending more time teaching people to embrace that which is different.

Final week, question 1

Reviewing this semester and the concepts that we covered, there are quite a few concepts that I found to be interesting. One of the most interesting was the entire idea of dyadic communication. When we covered this we got to analyze a recent conflict that we had been in through out journal assignment. I really enjoyed this; it let me look back at a conflict that I had with my boyfriend, and analyze it in a way rather than just the pissed off girlfriend.

Another concept that I really enjoyed was actually the entire chapter about cultural communication. One of the biggest problems that face our society is lack of tolerance, and being able to express the differences in cultures that don't paint anyone in a negative picture is something that doesn't happen nearly as often as it should.

This course has opened my eyes to a lot of different communication concepts that I never even knew existed. Each chapter offered a new term that, after reading, really made sense in the scheme of things. Out of all the courses that I've taken, this textbook was the least textbook-ish book that I've read.

Week 11/15-11/21 question 3

The most interesting concept that I came across in this week's reading was the idea of hegemonic messages, or rather media messages that keep powerless groups from making their ideas known. I'm not going to lie, I'm a slight conspiracy theorist. I tend to think that the man keeps down the little guy, as ridiculous as it might sound. We always see, especially on TV, the idea that the man is keeping the little guy down, and there is usually some struggle to overcome this: the jock being beaten in his sport and getting the girl, the employee uncovering a scandal and fighting to make it known, etc. Let's face it, we as a race want to succeed and be powerful. The media pretty much has complete control over what we see, hear, watch, read, etc. Unless we go outside the box and search for something a little less unknown, a little less popular, a little less commercialized, we get the same thing washed and painted a shiny new color; but the little guy still goes unknown. The media vies for attention based on its sponsors, and rather than sharing the spotlight with those groups that might now be the biggest, the best, or the most popular, they hog all the attention for those who pay the most.

Week 11/15-11/21 question 2

I absolutely believe that the medium of a message is as important as the message itself. I think that dependent on the format, the person receiving the message will take it in a certain way. I'll use an instant messaging program for example. You send someone a message, and it can be inferred completely differently than you intend it to because you can't really tell tone over the internet. You can suggest something, and I will respond "oh, yeah, that sounds like a GREAT idea." Who is to say whether I am being sarcastic, or whether I actually think that what you suggested is a good idea?

I agree with McLuhan's idea that television is a cool medium. It's pretty easy to interpret what you see on the television, without trying too hard. I rarely, if ever, watch TV, but I can tell when actors on a show are trying way too hard to play their part. It doesn't seem natural, and it turns me off to it. I like having things left to my imagination, and when actors are too "hot" it just ruins it for me.

Week 11/15-11/21, question 1

I'm a geek. I spend way too much time on the internet, and for a long time a good portion of that was involved playing World of Warcraft (WOW). WOW is an MMORPG, or massive multiplayer online role playing game. Basically you are playing this game online with thousands of other players all over the world. Within the game there are guilds, and these guilds are basically your online family. Through my guild I made several friendships that existed strictly online. The closest that we got to f2f contact was talking through Ventrilo (a program where you actually talk to one another, kind of similar to using the telephone). The friendships that I developed were very similar, and very not similar, to those that I have in real life. They were similar because I became close with several people; I found myself confiding in them, talking to them more than I talked to some people I knew in person, and they were easy to talk to; they had similar interests to mine, and we were able to get along. It was also very different because I never saw them face to face; I was never able to give them a hug; and never able to physically interact with them as I would my real life friends. In all honesty, I enjoy having internet friends. Yet, I prefer the interactions that happen when I'm physically with someone.

Question 3

I think that it would be most difficult to change the competitive symmetry. In this instance you have two people who want to be in control, however in most cases there can be only one (highlander! Ok just kidding). I think that it would be very difficult to go from a position of being in charge and in control, making the decisions, to a position of letting another person choosing what happens (or whatever the situation might be). Obviously, someone who is dominant plays the role of the leader, and it could be hard for them to relinquish control, for reasons such as they don't think the other person will make the right decision, the other person won't do it as well, so on and so forth.

I think it would be most damaging to go from a submissive symmetry to a competitive symmetry. I think that a pairing of submissives would have a very hard time becoming dominant because, in my experience, submissives tend to second guess themselves when it comes to decisions. I can picture it being very difficult for a historically submissive person to find courage to make decisions and become a leader, without questioning whether they are doing everything right.

Question 2

My friends and I have a set of rules for those we choose to date: you don't date someone who's mean, you don't date someone who's stupid, and you don't date a what-what (definition of a "what-what" is as follows: someone who wears baggy cloths, lots of "bling", walks with a "limp", and acts like a wannabe gangster; in it's natural environment known to say "what-WHAT?!"). These are just some basic rules for who I choose to not date, because inevitably, all three would breed true. You gotta think about the future in these matters!

But in all seriousness, the qualities that I look for in other people are the same that I hope are shown in me: loyal, friendly, trustworthy, funny, someone who isn't afraid to be themselves.

There actually was one time that I reconsidered a preconceived notion for a romantic partner. His name was Griffin, and he was the typical "dork." I immediately discounted him for any thought of a romantic future. However, after getting to know him quite well, we did develop a relationship over time. It didn't work out in the end, but I was proven wrong about him though social interaction.

week 11/1-11/7 question one

One of the interesting was the expressive-protective dialectic. Finding a balance between what to share and what not to share is something that I can struggle with.

I like to think of myself as a non-judgmental person. I've been through and seen a lot in my life that lets me see how both sides of the coin can be. I find myself not judging people for whatever actions they do in their life. For this reason I have no problem with people confiding in me or telling me things that they would not normally tell others. I do the same, and sometimes I cross the line with people who I have just met or do not know very well. There have been several occasions where I find myself divulging information that you would think one would only tell their best friend of several years. My problem is not finding it awkward to talk to people or share experiences/ideas/whatever because I expect people to not judge me for my actions (unless I robbed a bank or something really morally wrong). This has backfired on my several times, however, and I notice that I tend to....scare people off by my openess. Just one more thing that I have to learn how to balance.

Question 3

I somewhat believe in the three premises discussed in this chapter. I would like to think that people aren't inherently evil, and that people can make decisions based on things such as logic and reason. I think that I agree most with the mutability premise the most. I believe that we are mostly shaped by our environment and how we interact eith people is based on how we were raised and shaped while growing up. I do not agree with the perfectibility premise at all, however. I think that premise is based on a religious idea, and when it comes to mixing religion and ideas of morality I tend to disagree. I don't personally believe that we were born in sin and need to spend our lives redeeming ourselves.

I think that schools hold the idea that we are trying to improve our future; that we want people to succeed, and that we care about where they go with their lives. I think that schools are a good example of the mutability premise. Granted, it's more the "idea' of school, because lets face it, our school systems could use some improvement.

Question 2

I agree that we are creatures of our cultures. I believe that we are raised a certain way, and once we hit "teen" years, we start to focus more on what we will be.

I would like to use a non-conventional example of a culture. For lack of a better term, and in no way do I mean this offensively, the "dork" culture: those who play Dungeons & Dragons, who read the sci-fi/fantasy genres on a constant basis, and who tend to be a little more lenient on the "fantastic." I won't lie, most of my group consists of people who fall into this culture. As one who in high school didn't really fit in to any particular group, I found my friends though my job. I used to make fun of the "dorks" until I realized they didn't focus on what was "popular" and instead focused on what made them and their friends feel good. It was interesting, transitioning from a group that was about fashion, who was screwing who, and where the party was this weekend, to a group that didn't need to get completely wasted to have a good time, didn't judge each other on what they were wearing (unless it was a particularly ugly Hawaiian shirt), and focused more on having fun with whatever they were doing, rather than the he-said, she-said nonsense that occurred in other groups. Oh, don't get me wrong, this group had the occasional bit of drama; however it was nothing compared to the other groups that I interacted with while growing up.

I know that a lot of people consider culture to be a heritage thing; they consider it to be what race you are, what religion you practice, and what you grew up knowing. After knowing hundreds of people, being a part of different groups, and seeing all the differences that make us up, I don't believe culture is based on just the above: I think culture is whatever makes you who you are, in almost every way.

Week 10, question 1

An idea in the reading that I found interesting was the ideas of culture shock. We all hear about it; for those of us who have traveled, we experience it. What is interesting to me, however, is the idea that you don't have to travel very far to experience it.

We live in a fairly large (compared to the European) countries. We think of ourselves as one nation, under God (for the religious ones). If our country is attacked we all rally together and stand as a single entity. Yet there are so many different parts that make up this country that we tend to forget the different values that make us who we are.

Recently I went to New York. I was with people who I knew, however I had never been there, and it was quite a trip (no pun intended). While I knew these people were, I assumed, American, their mannerisms were completely different than what I'm used to here in the Bay Area. People open doors and say thank you for you opening them; here, people just expect you to open them. Here, people love to have their space; riding around on public transit, standing in lines, even sitting in waiting rooms, people have no qualms with being up close and personal.

Everything that I mentioned struck me as odd; several times I had to remind myself that I wasn't in another country, I was still within the US. It just goes to show that while culture can be a nationwide thing, it also varies depending where you go.

Week 10/4-10/10 question 3

As one who fidgets on a constant basis, I found the section on Adaptors to be the most interesting. I'm guilty of not being able to sit still during class, in meetings, hanging out with friends, I always have to be doing something. I used to wear rings on both of my index fingers, and one day while I was hanging out with some friends, my friend pointed out to me that I would constantly turn my rings around my fingers. I never realized that I did this! The most ironic thing about it is I always notice other peoples nervous ticks. It's almost as if noticing when people are nervous or annoyed or uncomfortable is my mutant power. I noticed recently that I tend to chew on my inner cheek when I'm pensive. In fact, I just noticed I was doing so while thinking about what I was going to write for this post. It's almost as if my body is lulling my mind into a sense of security and relaxation before doing a task I don't necessarily enjoy.

Week 10/4-10/10 question 2

Although I would like to say that I am skilled and knowledgeable in the ways of different cultural nonverbal messages, I am not. However, there is one that comes to mind that I remember from an older British sitcom when I was a child. I used to watch the show "Are You Being Served" which took place in a British department store in the late 60's or 70's (I don't remember which). One of the gestures that they would do when insulting one another was the would take their index and middle finger, and make a "V" with it. They would then gesture up with their fingers while blowing a raspberry. This gesture was synonymous with "get stuffed," or basically "go screw yourself". This gesture I had never seen in my area of California, and I remember doing it in front of my mom and getting in trouble for it; however when I did it at school in front of my 3rd grade teacher, there were no repercussions. While this is an insignificant nonverbal message, it still was one that would get a reaction out of one culture, while being ignored in another.

Week 10/4-10/10 post 1

There is one time that sticks out in my mind where I grossly misinterpreted the nonverbal messages that I was being sent. I was hanging out with a couple friends and they told me their other friend, Josh, was coming over to hang out. I had never met him before, so when they introduced me to this tall, gorgeous man, I was very happy that they had invited him over. The entire night while hanging out, he would touch my knee, or my arm, or make very flirty gestures toward me. At the end of the night, I was very intrigued to get to know him, sans my friends. I asked him for his phone number and if he wanted to get dinner sometime. His response was "Oh sure! And you have to meet Terry, he'd love you!" and when I asked him who Terry was, he gave me a funny look, and responded "My boyfriend." Apparently Josh was gay, and his touching me was just him being flirty, not friendly. It was quite a shock to me!

If I were in this situation again I would certainly rethink what message was being sent to me when receiving physical touch. After the Josh incident, I don't take it to heart that someone is interested in me if they are being "flirty".

Week 6, question 1

Absolutely, I believe that men and women use language differently. Men and women perceive information in different ways, and how we communicate what information we have taken in is just an example of how we differ. A good example of this is advertising. In commercials for, let's say, beer advertised during a football game, every image that you see will only last 1-2 seconds before it transitions to another part of the ad. The ad will talk about the product being "cold, refreshing," and make it a man's beer. It emphasizes on how it's a manly product and is something a man's man can enjoy. It's using personal prototypes to target a specific group that the ad agency thinks will be watching this particular program.

On the flip side, when something is advertised toward a woman, it's message can be something along the lines of saving money, using a "family" message, including how it can benefit or protect your family in some way, or trying to appeal to a woman's sense of self, including targeting her physical beauty. These tactics that are targeted to men and women is just an example of how we communicate different.

Week 2, question 3

The worlds we build in our society can be very different than the worlds that are built in other societies. Here in America (as a gross generalization) we're loud; we like to live large and fast; a lot of times we don't care about others in the sense of we want what we want and we'll go to extremes to get it. From our lingo to our literature, we are very different than the rest of the world. One example is how much we rely on monetary success. We go to school to get a good job to make lots of money to buy nice things. We focus on family, where applicable. However, if you go to other countries, it's not the same. Family, and education for the sake of education, is a lot of the focus. I feel in this country, through all the trials and tribulations that we've gone through, we still have a lot to learn in the way of communication. We've perfected technology to hear: the problem is perfecting our ears to listen.

Week 2, question 2

I think it makes a lot of sense to consider communication a patterned interaction. We follow a pattern as far as how we communicate, and to whom. For example, I communicate with my mom in one way: I can speak honestly, and for the most part, without limit. Granted, I don't go into any nefarious deeds that I might partake in (said as I shine my halo) but I can certainly approach her with any problem or issue that I have, or whatever is causing me trouble in my life. On the other hand, I talk to my friends very differently. I'm more liberal with profanities, am willing to share what nefarious deeds I've partaken in (adjusts halo) and am more likely to speak with less respect aimed at them. By no means does it meant that I respect them less; just differently.

These are patterns that we form with those we communicate based upon our experiences. I've worked in retail for nearly 9 years, and I've developed patterns with my customers depending on how they respond to me: whether they are rude, polite, overly flirty, or have your basic cordial attitude. I've become a master at gauging people, and I repeat the patters of communication with then that I have with customers who were similar to them. I think communication is all based on past experiences, and how we relate those patterns to those we communicate with.

Week 2, part 1

Out of all the models that were discussed I found the Social Constructionist model to be the most interesting. It almost goes hand in hand with "nature vs. nurture." The idea that we experience our world by symbols and what we were raised with rings true to me. The example that they used in the book, with John calling his female coworkers "honey" and "explaining everything to them" is a great example of him just going by what he was used to. Different cultures have very different ideas, and how you are raised can influence how you perceive things. Something that might be considered respectful in one culture can be considered an insult in another. Its the differences that make us all unique, and this goes along with communication as well. I think that it would be a very boring world to live in if everyone in every culture in every country around the world were to interpret everything exactly the same.

Question 3

Which concept do I find interesting? One that might not be considered interesting at all: delivery. I think one of the most important ideas of communication, especially when giving a speech, is delivery. You can do all the research. You can do all the preparations. You can have props, and flashing lights, and music, or a myriad of other things that add on to your speech. However, if you get up there and stutter, mumble, don't make eye contact, or engage your audience, your speech can be worthless.

Last semester I took an argument and debate class. For the first speech the teacher videoed us, and we had to watch it. (apparently she believes in torture.) It was painful! While I had a lot of information, good sources, and a cogent argument, my delivery made me bomb my speech. Obviously, I was nervous. I spoke as if the Road Runner got a hold of my tongue, and I didn't make enough eye contact with the audience. It was embarrassing!

So should you ever be a speaker, my advice would be after all your hard work for research and ensuring that the information you have is correct, practice your speech. You don't want to fail on delivery.

Question 2

The Greeks said that you had to be a morally good person to speak. I, on the other hand, disagree with this. You can be a terrible person, yet you speak in such a manner that you have people following you, people who make crazy arrangements just to hear you speak, and you can be one that society, in the end, deems evil. For example, Charles Manson. He committed a string of acts that the eyes of society and the law deemed evil; however he was able to persuade an entire group of followers that what he was involved in was logical and right.

This might be an extreme example, however I find it to be an important point. Just because someone can speak, and persuade, and change the minds of people with or without logical backing, that doesn't mean they have to be a good person.

In my opinion, I think society would like to think that to be a good speaker you would only speak the truth; that you only speak what seems morally "right"; that you are a "good" person. Yet there are oppositions to every side, and each side has its' own skeletons in their closets.

Admired Speaker

A good example of a speaker that I admire is John Granger. He is a literary professor and is known within the literary world for his talks and discussions on Harry Potter (oh yes, Harry Potter). His method of speaking is one that touches on both pathos and logos. He uses a communication style that can touch on the emotions of a person, yet at the same time give a logical reason as to why his arguments are cogent. He uses canon information and ideas within the books alongside other literary theories from different types of literature to prove his point, all while touching on the human emotions of what passage he has just read, or the symbolism therein.

When it comes to trying to persuade others, I'm unsure as to which I use more. I used to be a very emotional person, and during speeches I would touch on the more human aspect of my argument. However, lately I've noticed that I tend to focus more on the logical side of an argument; I find these tend to stick to the audience (dependent on the situation, of course) better.

Intro

Hello!

My name's Vanessa but please call me Nessa (since no one on this planet except my older family calls me Vanessa). I'm currently, and obviously, a student at SJSU and will be graduating in December of 2010. I'm a communications major, minoring in public relations.

I'm currently the music manager at Barnes & Noble. I've been there since the dawn of time, or rather almost 9 years. After I graduate I plan on changing job; however I have no idea what I want to do.

That's about it for now.